To the People of America

Byron In Exile

Frederick Fucking Chopin
Joined
May 3, 2002
Posts
66,591


THE ADDRESS OF GEN. WASHINGTON

To the People of America,

ON HIS DECLINING THE PRESIDENCY

OF THE

UNITED STATES.




Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. ...

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them. ...

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Geo. Washington.
 
It would be nice, Byron, if the Presidents of the past 50 years had read this and taken these words to heart before they ran for election.
 
Sigh. I'm not a fan of 'The Good Old Days', but we could sure use a person like Washington these days.

Another Tom Jefferson would be nice as well. And Ben Franklin, the randy old bastard.
 
rgraham666 said:
Sigh. I'm not a fan of 'The Good Old Days', but we could sure use a person like Washington these days.

Another Tom Jefferson would be nice as well. And Ben Franklin, the randy old bastard.

I want to be the next Ben Franklin, but I'm still waiting to be accepted into the Hellfire club first.
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
It would be nice, Byron, if the Presidents of the past 50 years had read this and taken these words to heart before they ran for election.
I dunno, Jenny. This part didn't really work for me:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Mr. Washington was evidently NOT in favor of a separation of Church and State...nor did he evidently believe, proof to the contrary before him, that Atheists could be be moral and just.
 
Last edited:
3113 said:
I dunno, Jenny. This part didn't really work for me:



Mr. Washington was evidently NOT in favor of a separation of Church and State...nor did he evidently believe, proof to the contrary before him, that Atheists could be be moral and just.
We have a separation of Church and State now? Maybe someone should tell GW. The problem is as I see it, we've never really had that separation. I think we do, but not in the terms that you are talking about.

This country was founded on the christian church. And the politicians have courted the church for support since the founding. Today, we have Jerry Falwell telling GWB how to run foreign policy and look at the mess we are in.

Has an atheist ever been nominated for president even though he/she would have been a great candidate? God, back in the 20's the bloody Klu Klux Klan was given a tax-free exemption as a religion. Abe Lincoln said, "The Union will prevail as God is on our side." Jeff Davis said almost exactly the same thing.

As I said, I don't see a separation in the terms you are talking about. I do see a separation in terms of the leader of this country also not being the leader of a national church, as it is/was in England, which is, I think, what the founders had in mind.
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
We have a separation of Church and State now? Maybe someone should tell GW. The problem is as I see it, we've never really had that separation.
You're quite right. But my objection to what Washington said was that he implied that those in power MUST have religion and MUST maintain religion in government because there was no way to maintain morality and justice otherwise.

I'm not saying that we can't have leaders--good, honest leaders--who are religious, obviously, we can and we have. But requiring them to be religious, thinking that without that religon they can't be moral and just...is simply wrong. I think you agree with that--but, apparently, Washington would not agree with us. He has some excellent points in this speech, but making sure that government and its leaders are always religious, is not one of those good points. It maintains a fallacy not only that there can be no morality without religion...but that religious people are always moral and just.

And we know that just ain't true. One does not guarantee the other, so insisting that there be religion does nothing to maintain morality and justice. As some of your examples so aptly prove.
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
It would be nice, Byron, if the Presidents of the past 50 years had read this and taken these words to heart before they ran for election.
Indeed. Although the motives of those who seek the office today seem to be very different from those of former times, and anyone taking such things seriously today would quickly become unelectable.
 
3113 said:
I dunno, Jenny. This part didn't really work for me:



Mr. Washington was evidently NOT in favor of a separation of Church and State...nor did he evidently believe, proof to the contrary before him, that Atheists could be be moral and just.

Separation of Church and State meant something very different in those days than it does today. The Church was a political entity, hence the capitalization, that interferred in the day-to-day running of the government. The founding fathers were descendents of people seeking religious freedom, not freedom from religion. They believed that the State's rights do not include the right to enforce a religion on the people. What Washington believed is that a person should be religious, but that the State cannot compel him to be so, making him in favor of separation of Church and State.

As for Atheists... It is a very common thought that Atheists cannot be moral. Although to be more clear they are amoral rather than immoral. Afterall, where is their motivation to be moral? Morality by its nature favors the society over the individual. But if the individual expects no penalty to result from not following a moral code, then where is the incentive to favor society over himself? In fact, logic would dictate that the only reason an atheist would aid society rather than himself is if his aid would provide him with a long term benefit. And what proof to the contrary did he see? And don't say Jefferson because he was in the closet about his religious beliefs (and many even say he was a deist, even if he wasn't a Christian).

Also don't forget that Washington was a deeply devout man. He literally would not have accomplished what he did if he wasn't.

Finally, I would like to say that you take away that he thought atheists are immoral, and I take away that he thought the President must be a deeply moral man, with a side note that institutional atheism causes a decline in morality.

EDIT: In response to your follow-up post... He didn't say that people had to be religious, but that they had to follow religious principles. Good and Evil, Right and Wrong are religious principles.
 
Last edited:
only_more_so said:
And what proof to the contrary did he see? And don't say Jefferson because he was in the closet about his religious beliefs (and many even say he was a deist, even if he wasn't a Christian).
While he might not have known any atheists, Washington knew a few Deists: Thomas Paine, James Madison and, oh, Benjamin Franklin who wrote:"Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist."

All these guys were at least *influenced* by Deism. Now Deism (at least according to Wikipedia) "typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being."

This would seem to indicate that Diests refute all the things that you assert would be logical to Washington. For example, heaven and hell. Yet Washinton was able to see such men following a moral code WITHOUT any need to believe that they'd be struck down by God if they didn't. Hence, ample proof to the contrary for Washington that people who follow no religious principles (what are the religious principles of a Diest?) can yet be moral, just and selfless. Thomas Paine certainly saved Washington's ass...Washington might well have lost all his troops if not for Common Sense.

Also don't forget that Washington was a deeply devout man. He literally would not have accomplished what he did if he wasn't.
I'm sorry. COME AGAIN? So, you're saying that if he hadn't believe in God he wouldn't have been able to do what he did? Dude, I will agree that he was religious, and I will agree that he found whatever he found in religion to get him through the rough times. But I will NOT agree that anyone raised without religion is incapable of finding the courage, strength, moral fiber or whatever of achieving great, nearly impossible things. I certainly hope that wasn't what you were suggesting.

I take away that he thought the President must be a deeply moral man, with a side note that institutional atheism causes a decline in morality.
If this is what he thought, then this is what he thought, and I have no problem with that. BUT if we are going to quote him as a model for what WE should think in the here and now, then I have a problem. We'll accept the prejudices of his day, his faulty logic based on insufficent data, and his own personal bias given his faith.

And we'll accept this as a historical document of how he thought given all that. But if we're going to accept this as a document to follow NOW, with reasoning and argumentation STILL valid in every particular...then I have a problem with this particular section.

And this WAS posted as a way of offering advice from the past to politicians in the present...was it not?

He didn't say that people had to be religious, but that they had to follow religious principles. Good and Evil, Right and Wrong are religious principles.
I'm sorry...did you miss that line: "RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION." If "religious obligation" desert the "Oaths"--says Washington. In other words, a person HAS to believe in God, has to have some religious belief or he won't hold to oaths.

I kinda think that means he wants people to be religious...not just to follow religious principle.

And yes, I'm sure he believed that good/evil, right/wrong were religious principles and could not exist without religion. Again, how does one, then manage to obtain such principles without being "religious"? You would seem to be splitting hairs because nowhere does Washington, OR YOU, explain what NOT being "religious" means. Clearly, given Washington's deeply religious bias, I'd guess that that he would have rather had those running the government NOT be diests--he'd have rather that they believed in holy books, miracles, heaven/hell--because otherwise they won't hold to their oaths.

So yes, he would seem to want people to be religious.
 
Last edited:
3113 said:
Mr. Washington was evidently NOT in favor of a separation of Church and State...nor did he evidently believe, proof to the contrary before him, that Atheists could be be moral and just.
George Washington was certainly in favor of the separation of Church and State, as evidenced by the fact that his own religious views remain a mystery to this day. He was not devoutly religious as the devoutly religious have taken pains to portray him: he regularly refused communion, leaving church before that part of the service, and sending back the carriage for his wife, who stayed. When it was pointed out that for a respected public figure to constantly leave prior to communion was unseemly, he stopped attending church altogether on days when communion was to be a part of the service. The only plausible reason for his reluctance to participate in this ritual is that it would have been hypocritical for him to do so. He may have been an Atheist, or a Deist, but he seems unlikely to have been a Christian. In any case, he felt that one's religious beliefs were a private matter, not a public one.

As to any conclusion regarding his views about Atheists, it is faulty logic to attempt to derive, from a general positive statement about the effect of religion on the people as a whole, a negative statement about particular individuals.
 
Thinking about this, the US Goverment is made up to three separate branches: Administrative, Legislative and Judicial.

But, Congress always opens with a prayer. The President is a nut-case God Squader and in court you swear on the BIBLE. Hmmmm... odd.

I guess that's as close to separation of church and state as we'll ever get.
 
rgraham666 said:
Sigh. I'm not a fan of 'The Good Old Days', but we could sure use a person like Washington these days.

Another Tom Jefferson would be nice as well. And Ben Franklin, the randy old bastard.
Half of one of them would be nice. But the political process today seems geared toward weeding out anyone with integrity as the first priority, if such people even consider politics as something in which they'd want to be involved.
 
Byron In Exile said:
As to any conclusion regarding his views about Atheists, it is faulty logic to attempt to derive, from a general positive statement about the effect of religion on the people as a whole, a negative statement about particular individuals.
And, once again, if you post a speech given by someone from the past, and present it as advice to people in the PRESENT you have to accept that certain ideas in it might be taken in ways that the historical individual might or might not have intended them to be taken given the times in which he lived. If Washington is speaking to his own people in his own times that's one thing. If these views are going to be quoted and used by people NOW for their own ends in OUR times, that's quite another thing.

You posted this as advice to people NOW, I'm presuming. Not as a historical document to be analyzed about Washington and his times. Hence, I can point out how this sentence could be interpeted and used by people NOW, including people who do NOT want a separation of church and state, and who use the founding fathers' own belief in religion as evidence that we should be a religious nation. I sincerely doubt, however Washington intended it, or what he personally believed, that this part of his speech would be seen to support a separation of Church and State--at the very least, it argues that the leaders of this country SHOULD be religious, insisting that without it, they will not be moral and just or hold to their oaths. That would, logically speaking, imply that an atheist leaders are not good leaders.

Whether Washington knew any such atheists is irrelevant. His words, if we're going to quote and use them to guide us NOW, pretty much say that. I refer you once again to this part:

let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
NATIONAL morality, he says, cannot prevail if we exclude religious principle. Logically, that would imply that he's in *favor* of some sort of religious principle to guide the nation. And religious principle is not "religious" principle if it excludes any acknowledgment of "God."
 
3113 said:
And, once again, if you post a speech given by someone from the past, and present it as advice to people in the PRESENT you have to accept that certain ideas in it might be taken in ways that the historical individual might or might not have intended them to be taken given the times in which he lived. If Washington is speaking to his own people in his own times that's one thing. If these views are going to be quoted and used by people NOW for their own ends in OUR times, that's quite another thing.

You posted this as advice to people NOW, I'm presuming. Not as a historical document to be analyzed about Washington and his times. Hence, I can point out how this sentence could be interpeted and used by people NOW, including people who do NOT want a separation of church and state, and who use the founding fathers' own belief in religion as evidence that we should be a religious nation. I sincerely doubt, however Washington intended it, or what he personally believed, that this part of his speech would be seen to support a separation of Church and State--at the very least, it argues that the leaders of this country SHOULD be religious, insisting that without it, they will not be moral and just or hold to their oaths. That would, logically speaking, imply that an atheist leaders are not good leaders.

Whether Washington knew any such atheists is irrelevant. His words, if we're going to quote and use them to guide us NOW, pretty much say that. I refer you once again to this part:


NATIONAL morality, he says, cannot prevail if we exclude religious principle. Logically, that would imply that he's in *favor* of some sort of religious principle to guide the nation. And religious principle is not "religious" principle if it excludes any acknowledgment of "God."
Well, you caught me.

I was secretly hoping that everyone who read that would head straight to church and be baptized.

Oh, well, back to the drawing board...
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
It would be nice, Byron, if the Presidents of the past 50 years had read this and taken these words to heart before they ran for election.

It would be equally nice if people didn't keep electing crooked shysters for office. You can blame the politicians all you want, but the majority of the people still elect them.

Stop it.
 
rgraham666 said:
Sigh. I'm not a fan of 'The Good Old Days', but we could sure use a person like Washington these days.

Another Tom Jefferson would be nice as well. And Ben Franklin, the randy old bastard.

Or Madison, for that matter. He vetoed one bill because it was unconstitutional, and then urged people to amend the Constitution to allow the change that he agreed with, but didn't think was legal yet. Talk about sticking to one's principles, while still being flexible about the practical side.
 
Byron In Exile said:


THE ADDRESS OF GEN. WASHINGTON

To the People of America,

ON HIS DECLINING THE PRESIDENCY

OF THE

UNITED STATES.




Too bad Woodrow Wilson didn't read this before jumping into WW1, which I still think was a mistake. Nonsense like the Wolfowitz Doctrine would never have happened if we had stayed out of WW1. But Wilson wanted to wage a war to "make the world safe for democracy", as if Tsarist Russia were a democracy. Pah. Democracy was at no risk. Wilson just got a little too much missionary zeal in his blood.
 
School children learn about honesty from young George Washington's example. Accused of chopping down his father's prized cherry tree, the boy replied, "Mistakes were made. A tree was chopped down. It is time to stop playing the blame game and move on."

If only every American would decline the presidency!
 
shereads said:
School children learn about honesty from young George Washington's example. Accused of chopping down his father's prized cherry tree, the boy replied, "Mistakes were made. A tree was chopped down. It is time to stop playing the blame game and move on."

If only every American would decline the presidency!

The statement, that you are attempting to parody, was nerver uttered by Washington.

All evidence indicates that the following statement was a fabrication, never actually said by anyone prior to its being attributed to Washington.
"I cannot tell a lie, I did it with my little hatchet."

The earliest source of the supposed quote was a famous anecdote in "The Life of George Washington, with Curious Anecdotes Laudable to Himself and Exemplary to his Countrymen" (1806) by Parson Mason Weems [dude missed the day in journalism school about short lead in paragraphs and titles.], which is not considered a credible source, and many incidents recounted in the work are now considered to have sprung entirely from Weems imagination. [I don't know what kinda' weed ol' Parson Weems was smokin' but it must have been some legendary chronic!]
 
R. Richard said:
The statement, that you are attempting to parody, was nerver uttered by Washington.

All evidence indicates that the following statement was a fabrication, never actually said by anyone prior to its being attributed to Washington.
"I cannot tell a lie, I did it with my little hatchet."

The earliest source of the supposed quote was a famous anecdote in "The Life of George Washington, with Curious Anecdotes Laudable to Himself and Exemplary to his Countrymen" (1806) by Parson Mason Weems [dude missed the day in journalism school about short lead in paragraphs and titles.], which is not considered a credible source, and many incidents recounted in the work are now considered to have sprung entirely from Weems imagination. [I don't know what kinda' weed ol' Parson Weems was smokin' but it must have been some legendary chronic!]

He also fabricated "evidence" that Washington was a Christian, when he actually was probably a Deist. Sure, he belonged to the Church of England, but that was required by law and custom. Actual beliefs were not necessarily reflected by such things as being a vestryman.
 
Back
Top